-Ben
>I think that the main reason that the repubs are coming out so strong
>against gay marriage is totally unrelated to morals, ethics or religion.
>It's about big business. It's about government money. Think about how much
>more companies would have to pay out in insurance, death benefits, how huge
>would the tax breaks be? What about some of the newlywed mortgages and so
>forth I have seen?
>
>I think it's all about money.
>
>--
>Timothy Heald
>Web Portfolio Manager
>Overseas Security Advisory Council
>U.S. Department of State
>571.345.2319
>
>The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S.
>Department of State or any affiliated organization(s). Nor have these
>opinions been approved or sanctioned by these organizations. This e-mail is
>unclassified based on the definitions in E.O. 12958.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 1:15 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: Re: New Topic: 28th Amendment?
>
>
>Good points, and if you listen to Bush or anyone else opposed to gay
>marriage, they simply rattle off the old "sanctity" and "tradition"
>lines, like the GOP has suddenly been populated with a bunch of
>less-flexible Tevye's.
>
>I'd like to hear non-partisan, non-political economic points as it
>relates to gay marriage. If (hypothetically) all 50 states were to
>suddenly back it, how many new married couples would be projected? How
>many subsequent divorces over x,y,z years? What would the tax impact
>be? What studies have various industries done to gauge that effect?
>
>On a personal level, I find moral opposition to gay marriage sort of
>ridiculous, when I can be married by an Elvis impersonator in a Love
>Chapel on the Vegas strip, and file for no-fault divorce at any point
>afterwards. That sort of cavalier attitude towards another person and
>vows that are meant to define the rest of your life is more of a threat
>to the institution of marriage than the gender of those involved.
>
>- Jim
>
>Doug White wrote:
>
>>As I see it, marriage imparts many government goodies, such as favorable
>tax
>>status before the IRS, Legal, as in inheritance, consent to medical
>procedures,
>>joint tenancy such as homestead exemptions held jointly, and many more.
>>The proposed civil unions do not impart these protections and perhaps that
>is
>>the reason the movement is opposed. That is aside from religious reasons.
>>
>>For example if 1 1/2 million gays or others entered into same-sex marriage,
>what
>comes
>> to changing the US Constitution there is a whole slew of hoops that the
>> amendment has to run through before it is enacted.
>>
>> The problem that is happening right now is the fact that we have a Full
>> Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution (Article 4) that means that
>what
>> is recognized as a marriage in one state must be accepted as a marriage
>(for
>> *legal* purposes) in all states. The other thing that I heard during his
>> announcement was that he suggested that states come up with some
>alternative
>> to marriage (civil unions, support of same sex couples in taxing and
>> benefits) without redefining marriage.
>>
>> We're not talking about whether or not two men or two women should have
>the
>> ability to commit themselves to each other before God, family and
>friends.
>> It is a question of whether or not the Government must see these same sex
>> couples at the same level as they do heterosexual couples when it comes
>to
>> legal issues.
>>
>> Hatton
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
